Apple's 30% cut is outrageous, yet when Amazon took twice that no one cared

The new 70% royalty more than doubles what Amazon currently pays in royalties. The increase was widely seen as Amazon.com's attempt to pre-empt the impact of Apple's entry into the e-book market

When rumors of Apple's typical 30/70 split (Apple/publisher) for an eBook store became too realistic to ignore, Amazon moved quickly to match the terms (though they didn't quite do so, putting a few conditions in place). 

Until then Amazon had been taking up to 70% and no one questioned it or cared. Yet when Apple announced they'd soon begin taking 30%—their standard cut—of another category of item sold in the App Store everyone flipped out.

On the face of it, it's hard to believe those claiming outrage aren't primarily motivated by the fact that this is Apple, and any Apple headline is "news." Let's face it, "Amazon's 70% Cut is Evil and Publishers Will Perish" is an article few would have read. 

Online Publishers: Other Industries Must Navigate Change, Not Us.

Here’s my point: businesses don’t get to pick the timetable for when their preferred model takes a permanent dirt nap. It’s insane to me that these businesses’ fans see this so much more clearly than their actual stakeholders do.

Merlin Mann is stirring up the online publishing community with this one, but he's spot on, IMO.

Is there some sense of "entitlement" in the content space? Sure. Is that the reason some online publishers can't make enough money, or grow the way they want to? No. This is like the music industry blaming piracy for their woes, which everyone -- even these same online publishers -- calls them on.

Apparently, since online publishers consider themselves "new media" they're free to blame their customers in a way they don't think "old media" can. Bullshit.

If your existing model isn't working, change it. If you can't (or won't) then you'll probably go under, as most businesses do. Blaming your customer is never the answer.